Here’s Mankiw’s ‘science’ - A letter to Ben Bernanke - It’s mildly entertaining…
some serious scholarship on display there…
I stumbled upon this as well : The Optimal Taxation of Height:
“Should the income tax system include a tax credit for short taxpayers and a tax surcharge for tall ones ? This paper shows that the standard Utilitarian framework for tax policy analysis answers this question in the afirmative.”
The paper is a reductio-ad-absurdum of sorts and they do discuss the libertarian view on taxes. Apparently they pretend not to take sides, but I guess they are at least partially sympathetic to libertarianism. None of that seems very value-free, though…
hahahahaha, giles, where did you go wrong son? this is almost embarrassing.
It is easier to be a scientist than I previously thought! I will now quit my job flipping burgers and publish my science in elite economic journals.
More like he owned you all. You are an embarassment.
No, I’d say it’s somewhat embarrasing that Austrianism is associated with such blatant anti-intellectualism as this. Fact is that Rothbard, Hayek and Mises all published in mainstream journals, I don’t see why it is absurd to suggest that modern Austrians do. Fact of the matter is that it’s far too easy for you to rationalize the failings of Austrian economics, rather than admit that there’s not been enough effort on behalf of the Austrians you can simply put the blame on “the powers that be”.
You can sit there and rant about the mainstream economists as Juan is doing, calling them idiots or whatever else. At the end of the day the mainstream consists of economists who don’t care about epistemology, they just want results. Ask Block and Herbener, they are both neoclassicals until after they finished their PhD. I don’t have much attachment to Austrian epistemologhy either, to be honest, I just think it gives the best results, equilibrium theorizing doesn’t allow one to understand the complexity of the world, whereas disequilibrium theorizing does.
Now, that sounds very nice and all. But it simply isn’t true, I value liberty because peaceful cooperation and coexistance is far more prosperous than violence. I don’t have any special attachment to NAP, I don’t think it can be proven logically and more importantly I think libertarians draw ridiculous conclusions from it. But to go from there to saying I “value coercion” is a non sequitir.
Also, if you wish to berate me for thinking that the current state of academia is favourable to advancing Austrian economics and economic science in general, go ahead, I’ll admit, you’re the purist here. But don’t just stop with me, why don’t you tell Danny or GAP what you think about academia, or better yet, why don’t you email all your favourite Austrian professors and tell them what you think?
Fact is, almost no university in the world is free from state interference, so you’re going to have a hard time getting out of this one.
Wow, a Keynesian economist gives Keynesian advice to the chairman of the Fed… How very astute of you Juan, now, Mankiw is a smarter guy than any of us, and he’s not shown any hostility to Austrian ideas (search the site for Mankiw for proof). So why you have an axe to grind with regard to Mankiw is beyond me. There’s plenty of smart guys like Mankiw in academia, and until you’re willing to face them on their own grounds instead of publishing solely in Austrian outlets, you’re not going to get far.
To clarify my earlier point I think we should be focussing on refining our ideas in Austrain journals as the main point of attack since publishing in mainstream journals will mean talking past a lot of the editorial board or mean a lot of explaining; further my main concern here is one of compromise. Now if we can get published quailty praxeologically based papers in mainstream and influential journals then great; it would help our cause enormously. But the main aim is to advance the science of AE not to get published in the AER.
you shouldnt take my comment as an attack on this certain topic, giles, it’s more a general comment on your intellectual evolution that ive seen on this site.
it’s been amusing and interesting.
What would this “evolution” be? I’m curious, although, I’d still appreciate it if you can respond to me the points I’ve made.
I’m pretty much in agreement with you as far this goes, I think Austrians should use QJAE, RAE, JLS etc. to develop and refine our ideas. On the other hand, we also need to use more mainstream journals to communicate with the scientific community, being intellectual hermits won’t help Austrian economics. In the past Hayek, Mises and Rothbard all managed to get published in some pretty big journals (Econometrica, SEJ, QJE, AER, JEL to name a few), and now modern Austrians are also getting into some important journals: Horwitz, Boettke, Garrison, Yeager (more of a fellow traveler), Leeson, Selgin and so on are all getting Austrian works into top journals. I don’t think Austrians will have to, or should, dilute their ideas, but I think it’s important (and possible) to be a praxeologist and still get into the top economic journals.
I also think Salerno is correct, Austrians should attempt to get into the very best grad schools possible, not necessarily grad schools with Austrian programmes such as GMU. But that’s another topic.
Now I haven’t read much of their work but my impression of these guys is that are heavily influenced by Hayek, especially Garrison, and thus aren’t strictly praxeologists; Selgin maybe another issue though. Let me put it this way: until Guido Hulsmann, in my opinion the best living economist, his work putting Austrian theory on purely essentiallist ground is incredible, regularly gets published in a top economics journal I won’t be convinced.
As you can tell I’m not a broad church type and am not enamoured with Hayek.
I’m a big fan of Hulsmann too, and I’d also consider myself a Misesian as opposed to Hayekian or Lachmannian (my favourite Austrian economists are probably Huerta de Soto, Huelsmann, Mises, Garrison and Hayek). But I think that the fact that it’s Hayekians getting published has more to do with their general strategy than the substance of their work, I think if Huelsmann attempted to get into the top journals he would, he’s clearly a very intelligent man and a super economist.
As for Garrison, he’s done some really great work in my opinion, Time and Money is an excellent book (in terms of business cycle work Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles is better, but they compliment each other nicely). I’m giving it my second, more in depth, reading now.
Possibly. I think one of the reasons the Hayekians are more easily published since they can be less easily accused of dogmatism and armchair theorising; and also there almost universal acceptance of fractional reserve banking as well as borrowing short and lending long (have you read that paper by Block- it’s really interesting) makes their money and banking articles more acceptable.
It is true also that the Hayekians have focussed more on publishing in prestigious journals. It would be interesting to see if the Misesians could do the same.
Cochran said (paraphrasing somebody else) that the best way to read Hayek is as a neoclassical with an understand of and a background in Austrian economics. From what I’ve read of Hayek this is definately true to an extent, and I don’t doubt that it’s had a large impact in making Hayek more palatable to the mainstream also. I’d also hazard a guess that Hayek’s personality in comparison to Mises’ made him more acceptable, but people seem to forget that for the longest time Mises didnt’ identify himself as an “Austrian economist” he didn’t see any considerable differences, they also seem to forget that Mises was know the world over, he was a very reputable economist in his time. Granted, you can make a case that Hayek’s ideas about money and banking are closer to the mainstream, but, Mises was also pro - FRB at times, and at times Hayek advocated full reserves. Both were somewhat unsure and had contradictory views when it came to bank reserves. And even if Hayek were to be considered an advocate of FRB, he’s written a fair bit on free banking etc. which by the standards of any mainstream economist is pretty radical. This never stopped him being published, indeed, in spite of their radical views both Mises and Rothbard were published in mainstream, prestigious journals (Rothbard was published in: AER, JEL, JEH, QJE, SEJ, AHR and others).
Indeed, I’d really like to see Huelsmann, Block, Salerno, Herbener etc. trying to get published in the top journals. As I’ve said QJAE is essential for developing Austrian ideas and for debate amongst Austrians, however, if Austrians want to sell their ideas to everybody else they’ve got to try and get published in mainstream journals. It may well be tough to do so, but I think if the quality of the work is high enough then they’ll get published. Austrians can afford to attempt such a strategy with the huge numbers of Austrian grad students that there are now (as opposed to 50 years ago when there was Rothbard and Kirzner).
(As for the Block paper, is it the one he coauthored with Barnett? If so, I’ve got it on my reading list with about 1000 other articles that I intend to read )
You don’t walk that walk. There is nothing about your behaviour that shows you value anything other than your own high time preferences.
Why would I be afraid to tell anyone that? There is nothing wrong with being an educator, but the real stars of AE are Ron Paul and Peter Schiff. Schiff does what AE has long needed. He has taken the concepts and ideas, and wrapped them up in a package that makes people money. He is successfully applying austrian ideas to the marketplace, and finding ways to promote austrian ideas inside the market.
That is a copout. It doesn’t validate theft and coercion. If you are taking public money, particularly if you do not pay taxes, then there are not many places to hide on this. Sure, it’s impossible to avoid the state. But that doesn’t mean we should be choosing it as our first mechanism when the market provides private options.
Giles, I understand more about your goals concerning Austrian Economics, and I don’t think they are wrong. I was mainly critisizing Boettke for his attitude concerning what Austrian students should and shouldn’t attempt and focus their efforts on. However, if his goal is as yours, to expand Austrian Economics member base, I can see why he might come to those conclusions.
While I think spreading Austrian Economics, its ideas and epistemology, is an end that I would like to achieve, I think expanding, refining, and clarifying the content of Austrian Economics is in itself a goal to achieve, and I see in your earlier posts that you do not disagree. I do not think Boettke’s focus on major publications, to the extent of telling students to forget about capital theory, because it is not an accepted part of mainstream analysis, is in the spirit of progressing Austrian Economics as a whole.
I admit that Mankiw seems to be partially sympathetic to libertarianism. On the other hand, your calling this stuff ‘science’ indicates that you are either confused or are making a false claim on purpose for some reason I can’t fathom (or care much about).
Anyway, mainstream economists are not scientists they are political opportunists. By the way, you might want to learn what opportunism means
" : the policy or practice, as in politics, business, or one’s personal affairs, of adapting actions, decisions, etc., to expediency or effectiveness regardless of the sacrifice of ethical principles. "
I’d say that libertarians who usually have an ‘irrationial’ attachment to moral principles can’t really be called opportunists…unlike, say, harvard court intellectuals.
zefreak, I can’t see I always agree with Boettke. After all, I’d consider myself a Misesian at this point in time, my biggest point was that I don’t like a lot of the anti-intellectualism that goes around these forums. People seem to hold very high opinions of themselves to the extent that they honestly believe they are as knowledgable about many professors (Austrian or otherwise) because they’ve read Human Action or Man, Economy and State.
I think Boettke says some very silly things on his blog every now and then (e.g. Lavoie knows Mises better than Rothbard did and Huelsmann does), as does Leeson (and thankfully, Salerno calls them out on it), but that’s to be expected. I think Boettke does great work over at GMU training future generations of Austrians, and I say this as somebody who thinks that Austrians should avoid going to PhD programmes such as that offered by GMU and instead aim for the very best grad school they can get into. Leeson, on the other hand, is an Austrian who will be going to U of Chicago, which seems to me can only be a good thing. So on the whole, I think I agree with Boettke, I think he’s a bit off when he says Austrians have zero bias against them, I also think many Austrians are even further off when they say that the whole world is against them and the entirely of academia is out to get them. Horwitz and Murphy hold a reasonable position in this regard: there’s some bias against Austrian ideas as there are against all heterodox schools, however, it isn’t too much to overcome. I also think Boettke is a little off when he says that Austrians should only try to get published in top journals, I think Austrians need to use mainstream journals to get their ideas out, but to say that they should only focus on such journals for the sake of getting into such journals is misguided and could be harmful.
LS, I don’t really think you know me well enough (or could know me well enough given our means of communication is an internet discussion board) to make such judgements. I may not walk that walk, but truth be told, I don’t talk that talk much either (that talk being libertarianism, I suppose). Although, I’d really like to know how you’re arriving at such conclusions, especially regarding my time preference.
Schiff may well have a positive impact on AE, but he’s not contributed much to it, this is no offence to him. I think you really need to learn the difference between a scientist (e.g. Mises, Huelsmann, Boettke, Friedman) and people like RP and Schiff, who may spread the ideas, but don’t make huge contributions to science. That’s not to say that somebody can’t be both, just that, it’s unlikely. To be honest, I think you have something of an anti intellectual slant, a lot of Randians do, and it really comes across here and in topics such as “Sterba Libertarian Critique”. It just seems odd to me (and unfortunate) that so many people associate with the LvMI hold such views, when one of the biggest acheivements of the LvMI is to put Austrians in places at good universities (GCC, NYU etc.).
As for whether its a copout, perhaps it is. But the undeniable fact is that the state have arrogated itself a monopoly on education. It subsidizes huge amounts of intellectuals, far more than the market would sustain. So I don’t see why Austrian shouldn’t take advantage of this, especially not since whatever job you do you’ll be receiving subsidies from the state in one form or another. But then again, none of this matters to me, I don’t hold the NAP to be as sacred as you do.
Juan, I’ve not read anything by Mankiw that tells me he is very sympathetic to libertarianism. In his textbook he stresses the need for property rights and political stability wrt economic development, but many conservatives do that too. On the other hand, what I have seen is complete honesty as stands his knowledge of Hayek and Mises.
Once again, I don’t think it’s fair to call mainstream economics opportunists or court jesters. If these people had happened to go to a different university and studied under an Austrian, they’d probably be Austrians. I don’t think many of them care about epistemology, they just want to do good economics and they think that the positivist, formalist paradigm that exists today allows them to do that. So they invest large amounts of human capital in learning maths and statistics in the hope to be good economists. They’re misguided, not evil and most certainly not stupid.
As for opportunism:
My point was that this is what libertarians should do, and how they should conduct themselves if they wish to advance liberty.
So, you’re a ‘highly religious christian’ advocating crime and “ends-justify-the-means” nonsense. Well, I’m going to take you even less seriously than usual.
By the way, have you been lying in this thread in order to advance whatever it is you’re trying to advance ? Since you believe that lying is useful, I’ll assume you are a regular liar. I wonder what the point in arguing with a liar is…
Uh oh. Your advocacy of hiding truth is very intellectual…you’re a true philosopher eh ?